Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
The State Of Rajasthan vs Virendra Singh S/O Sh. Fateh Singh Ji ... on 17 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:16577-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 575/2024
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department
Of Devasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner, Department Of Devasthan,
Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur
3. The Assistant Commissioner, Department Of Devasthan,
Vrindavan, U.p.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Virendra Singh S/o Sh. Fateh Singh Ji, Resident Of Jaipur
Mandir, Mathura Road, Vrindavan, Uttar Pradesh (Since
Deceased) through Legal Representatives:-
1/1. Kusum W/o Late Shri Virendra Singh, Aged About 58
Years, Resident Of Jaipur Mandir, Madhovilas, Vrindawan
Mathura, Utter Pradesh.
1/2. Ravindra Pal Singh S/o Late Shri Virendra Singh, Aged
About 38 Years, Resident Of Jaipur Mandir, Madhovilas,
Vrindawan Mathura, Utter Pradesh.
1/3. Lokendra Singh S/o Shri Virendra Singh, Aged About 36
Years, Resident Of Jaipur Mandir, Madhovilas, Vrindawan
Mathura, Utter Pradesh.
1/4. Vandana W/o Sanjay Kumar Rana, Resident Of Kanugoyo
Mohalla, Palwal, Palwal Rural Part- 73, Palwal- 121102.
1/5. Manvendra Singh S/o Late Shri Virendra Singh, Aged
About 32 Years, Resident Of Jaipur Mandir, Madhovilas,
Vrindawan Mathura, Utter Pradesh.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma for Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Pareek, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhay Purohit, Mr. Pulkit Pareek, Mr. Hem Chand Sharma, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Gunjan & Ms. Muskan Soni (Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 10:39:16 AM) (Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 06:44:30 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16577-DB] (2 of 6) [SAW-575/2024] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Judgment 17/04/2026
1. Instant DB Special Appeal (writ) is preferred by the appellants non-petitioners aggrieved from order dated 30.05.2024 in review petition no. 51/2023 and order dated 31.03.2022 in writ petition no. 7783/2017 Virendra Singh Vs. State and Ors. passed by learned Single Judge.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants submits that respondent writ petitioner Virendra Singh (since deceased) was appointed purely on stop-gap arrangement as Nidhi Prabandhak. He further submitted that the respondent has filed a writ petition with contention that his services be regularized from 01.12.1994 and the order dated 24.02.2016 passed by the appellants, pursuant to order dated 11.03.2014 in writ petition no. 20719/2013, be declared as illegal. He further submitted that while considering the case of respondent writ petitioner, a Co- ordinate Bench has placed reliance upon judgment in case of Shyamlal versus State of Rajasthan and Ors., SB civil writ petition no. 3644/2005 decided at Principal Seat Jodhpur on 15.05.2017 on the basis of judgment in case of Smt. Kanchan Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil writ petition no. 473/1993 decided on 05.01.2000. He further submitted that the case of respondent writ petitioner is having no similarity either with Kanchan Devi (supra) and Shyamlal (supra) or with learned Single Judge has (Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 10:39:16 AM) (Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 06:44:30 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16577-DB] (3 of 6) [SAW-575/2024] committed serious error while allowing the writ petition on the basis of aforementioned judgments.
3. Learned counsel has further submitted that they have filed a review petition with comparative tables to show that the cases are not similar and there are factual differences, but learned Single Judge has also rejected the review petition without considering the facts mentioned by the appellants. He further referred order dated 24.01.2025 in S.B. Review petition no. 162/2022, "State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajendra Singh Rajpurohit" in writ petition no. 12723/2017, "Rajendra Singh Rajpurohit Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., decided on 05.01.2022 by a Co-ordinate Bench at Principal Seat Jodhpur and submitted that facts as narrated in Kanchan Devi (supra) were not specifically applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case and the order passed by learned Single Judge are liable to be set aside.
4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of legal heirs of deceased respondent and submitted that respondent writ petitioner has already expired and now his legal heirs are defending the case. He further submitted that the appointment order and extension order are placed on record which clearly demonstrate that writ petitioner Virendra Singh (since dead) was appointed by Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan and not by any temple board. He also submitted that terms of appointment also indicate that it was with pay and allowances. He further submitted that the judgment in case of Kanchan Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, SB (Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 10:39:16 AM) (Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 06:44:30 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16577-DB] (4 of 6) [SAW-575/2024] civil writ petition no. 473/1992 decided by a coordinate bench of this Hon'ble Court at Principal Seat Jodhpur was upheld by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court on 03.12.2015. He further submitted that the State of Rajasthan has preferred SLP (Civil) ....... CC no. 11532/2016 before Hon'ble Supreme Court and same was dismissed on 12.07.2016. He further submitted that the judgment in case of Kanchan Devi (supra) was relied while disposing writ petition of Shyam Lal Sharma (supra) on 15.05.2007. He also submitted that the issue was considered by learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition and same was also considered while dismissing the review petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for appellants and learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent. Perused the material placed on record and also considered the judgment as referred by learned counsel for parties.
6. Admittedly respondent-writ petitioner Virendra Singh was appointed as Nidhi Prabandhak against vacant post on 03.12.1994 on recommendation of Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Vrindavan. The appointment order is issued by the Commissioner, Devasthan, Rajasthan and the services of Virendra Singh were extended from time to time. The respondent has filed a writ petition no. 20719/2013 before this Court which was disposed of on 11.03.2014 with direction to the Commissioner, Devasthan to examine the case of petitioner in light of judgment in case of Smt. Kanchan Devi (supra). Pursuant to order dated 11.03.2014 in said writ petition, an order dated 24.02.2016 (Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 10:39:16 AM) (Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 06:44:30 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16577-DB] (5 of 6) [SAW-575/2024] was issued that the respondent Virendra Singh is entitled for benefits under the Devasthan Nidhi Karamchari Niyam 2010. The respondent has filed a writ petition which was disposed by learned Single Judge on 31.03.2022 on the basis of judgment in case of Shyam Lal Vs. State (supra). Aggrieved appellants have filed a review petition which was also dismissed on 30.05.2024.
7. In case of Rajendra Singh Rajpurohit Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), initially the writ petition was allowed on 05.01.2022 on the basis of judgment in case of Smt. Kanchan Devi vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), but an appeal preferred by State of Rajasthan and Ors., an opportunity was granted to file review application and appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. In a review petition filed by the State of Rajasthan and others, the order was modified to the extent that respondent would be governed by the rules of 1957 and entitled for regularization under Rule 25(10) of the rules of 1957.
8. In the instant case, learned counsel has referred comparative chart submitted as Annexure-2 in review petition and we have considered the difference between case of Virendra Singh and Kanchan Singh/Shyamlal. No doubt about it that Kanchan Devi was appointed on 05.05.1986 and Shyamlal on 15.04.1985, whereas Virendra Singh was appointed on 01.12.1994. The respondent was also appointed against a vacant post though initially for a period of three months, but his term was extended from time to time. The principle and ratio except the date of appointment (Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 10:39:16 AM) (Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 06:44:30 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16577-DB] (6 of 6) [SAW-575/2024] are same. The judgment in case of Shyamlal (supra) assailed up to Hon'ble Supreme Court as SLP was dismissed on 27.04.2012.
9. After taking note of observation made by learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition and also review petition, we are of the view that the matter was rightly considered on the basis of ratio laid down in case of Shyamlal (supra) and Kanchan Devi (supra). We are fully in agreement with learned Single Judge on the reasons assigned by him while deciding the writ petition and the review petition. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere in the orders passed by the learned Single Judge.
10. Hence, the instant SAW is hereby dismissed with pending application, if any.
(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J CHETNA BEHRANI /101 (Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 10:39:16 AM) (Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 06:44:30 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)